UNIVERSITY TEACHING FROM AN ACTIVITY SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE

1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RESEARCH

Effective teaching has always been a cornerstone of university mission statements but realizing the vision of effective teaching has never been as compelling or as challenging as it is today, in an ever- changing higher education climate. New trends that define higher education now cross institutional and national borders and directly impact the way effective teaching is conceptualized, supported, developed, evaluated, valued, and rewarded locally. The imperative to deliver quality teaching is particularly important in the Canadian context. With massive renewal of faculty, estimated at 40,000 in the decade leading to 2010, increase in participation rates, and the Federal Government’s expressed desire to make Canada one of the world’s top countries for research and development, we have to urgently explore new ways that will suit our autonomous institutions to enhance the quality of teaching in the most meaningful and effective way.

To build the teaching and learning capacity in our universities, for the past 35 years, Canadian universities have invested significant resources in faculty development initiatives. The scope of these activities has been varied but the target has primarily been the individual faculty member and the development of teaching related capacities. While the impact of initiatives at the individual level is well documented, the beneficiaries remain to be those who are motivated to take part in these initiatives. It would be naïve to assume that targeted professional development for individuals will have profound effects on the overall quality of teaching without considering the constraints and affordances that context, structure, and policies have on individual activity. It would also be naïve to assume that all individuals will be equally interested in investing in development activities if the system does not value the activity. A more enlightened interpretation of development concerns the development of the practices of academics and academic leaders as well as the institution and its structures and policies.

Our understanding about the dynamics of university environments and the interaction between institutional, individual, systemic structures, and corresponding affordances and constraints is limited. The proposed research program aims to address this gap. Predicated on the assumption that organizational systems and structures have a bearing on ways in which faculty and departmental chairs engage in events that support, develop, assess, value, and reward teaching, it uses the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) lens to examine the activity of teaching.

More specifically, this research program explores convergences and contradictions between institutional, departmental, and individual faculty members’ vision of effective teaching, its importance relative to research and other academic activities, perceptions and realities of internal and external challenges that individual faculty members and departmental chairs face in taking steps to improve teaching, and the extent to which institutional structures, policies, and practices mediate teaching and influence its transformation.

Using a multi-site case study method, the research explores these questions within the context of six diverse departments of one research-intensive Canadian university.

The contribution of the proposed research program is at theoretical, methodological and practical levels. An activity systems perspective, by definition, takes into account the individual, the immediate environment, and the larger system within which teaching takes place. This is likely to yield a comprehensive theoretical understanding of teaching The activity systems perspective also affords the methodological tools to examine the phenomenon as it occurs within the constraints and affordances of the system. Analysis of the system is expected to bring to fore strengths and weaknesses in the fabric of institutional praxis. Knowing where the contradictions lie will be valuable knowledge for all stakeholders and most importantly for institutional policy makers and will pave the way for more effective mediations that result in the transformation of teaching.

UNIVERSITY TEACHING FROM AN ACTIVITY SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE

1.1 DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Objectives

This research program is about how effective university teaching is understood and delivered. It is predicated on the assumption that organizational systems and structures have a bearing on ways in which faculty and departmental chairs engage in events that support, develop, assess, value, and reward teaching. Using the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) lens, it examines the activity of teaching and policies, practices, and actions that support or inhibit it.

Our understanding about the dynamics of university environments and the interaction between institutional, individual, and systemic structures and corresponding affordances and constraints is limited (Bowden, 1988; Dill, 1993; Donald, 1997; Knight & Trowler, 2000; Saroyan & Amundsen, 2004). The proposed research program aims to address this gap. It considers the system as a whole and teaching as an activity that occurs in this system. More specifically, the research addresses 4 questions:

a) What is the extent to which institutional, departmental, and faculty members’ vision of effective teaching and learning converge? To what extent do respective views on the importance of teaching relative to research and other academic activities converge? To what extent do institutional and departmental policies and practices correspond with the vision of effective teaching and learning?

b) What are the challenges that individual faculty members face in taking steps to improve their teaching? Why are some professors able to act on their pedagogical knowledge while others are not? To what extent do departmental leadership and climate, and institutional policies and practices influence decisions and actions taken at the individual level to improve teaching and learning?

c) What are the challenges facing departmental leaders in realizing their vision of effective teaching and learning? To what extent do institutional policies and practices and professors in the department influence chairs’ decisions and actions to promote and enhance teaching and learning?

d) What is the extent to which faculty, department chairs, and the office of the provost consider the delivery of effective teaching as a shared responsibility and who do they consider as partners in achieving the objective of effective teaching and learning? What tensions are brought on by external and internal forces and in what ways are these tensions perceived to influence teaching and learning?

Context

Effective teaching has always been a cornerstone of university mission statements but realizing the vision of effective teaching has never been as compelling or as challenging as it is today, in an ever- changing higher education climate. New trends that define higher education now cross institutional and national borders and directly impact the way effective teaching is conceptualized, supported, developed, evaluated, valued, and rewarded locally (Amaral, Jones, & Karseth, 2002. Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Salmi & Saroyan, 2007). The imperative to deliver quality teaching is particularly important in the Canadian context. With massive renewal of faculty, estimated at 40,000 in the decade leading to 2010 (AUCC, 2002), increase in participation rates (CAUT, 2007), and the Federal Government’s expressed desire to make Canada one of the world’s top countries for research and development, we have to urgently explore new ways that will suit our autonomous institutions in their aspiration to provide the best possible education in general and teaching in particular for our students.

For the past 35 years, faculty development has been the strategic initiative of Canadian universities to build the teaching and learning capacity in our universities (Taylor & Rege-Colet, under contract; Wilcox, 1997). Though there is little consensus on what constitutes faculty/staff development (e.g., Land, 2004; MacDonald, 2002; Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006; Wright, 1995) and approaches have been widely diverse (STLHE, 1995;  Wright, 2000; McAlpine & Saroyan, 2004; Taylor & Rege-Colet, under contract), the target has primarily been the individual faculty member and the development of teaching related capacities. Topics have included course design and teaching methods to support student learning

(Saroyan & Amundsen, 2004), assessment of student learning (e.g., Brown & Glasner, 1999; Loacker & Mentkowski, 1993), changing conceptions about teaching and learning (for a review see Kane, Sandretto, & Heath, 2002), and more recently, the scholarship of teaching (e.g., Hutchings & Shulman, 1999; Kreber, 2001; Poole, Taylor, & Thompson, 2007). When referred to as professional development (POD, 2002), faculty development has aimed at the holistic development of the individual academic with respect to all career demands (teaching, research, publishing, applying for and acquiring grants, supervising graduate students, etc.)(Brew & Boud, 1996; Candy, 1996; Smith, 2004).

The obvious shortfall of faculty/staff/professional development is that it targets the individual, and more often than not, a particular subset of professors who feel the necessity of developing their pedagogical expertise, value faculty development initiatives as being credible and worthwhile, and have the motivational drive to dedicate time and resources to this end (Centra, 1993). A more recent conceptualization casts efforts related to the enhancement of teaching as educational development. This process takes into account “all the work that is done systematically to help faculty members do their best to foster student learning” (Knight & Wilcox, 1998).  Studies that have looked at the role of the departmental chairs in promoting and supporting teaching have been guided by this broader vision of teaching development (Arcuri & Saroyan, 2003;  Knight & Trowler, 2000; Ramsden, 1998;  Martin, Trigwell, Prosser, & Ramsden, 2003;  Saroyan & Arcuri, 2002). Educational development, conceptualized in this fashion, is still an event that happens at the individual level “… albeit in the context of the department’s strategic aims and objectives” (Chalmers & O'Brien, 2004). Implicit in this notion is the understanding that “teaching development is not carried out in a functional or technical way but is framed within an overarching philosophy of educational development and teaching enhancement” (Chalmers & O'Brien, 2004, p. 52). While the impact of initiatives at the individual level is well documented, the beneficiaries remain to be those who are motivated to take part in these initiatives (Taylor & Bédard, under contract). A more enlightened interpretation of educational development concerns the development of the institution as well as the individual (Diamond, 2005; Gosling, 2003; Johnston, 1997; Rowland, 2003). It includes not just “the reconciliation of individual practices with institutional philosophies (Chalmers & O'Brien, 2004, p. 58)”, but the concurrent development of structures and policies and practices of academics and academic leaders to address the mutually understood and articulated goal of effective teaching. This entails a clear understanding of a common vision, the sensitivity to constant change brought on by external and internal factors and potential consequences on teaching and learning, and a sense of community of practice where responsibility is shared between all stakeholders and supported by appropriate organizational structures and policies.

The two lines of argument presented above, the imperative to address the teaching quality and the necessity to consider the development of the system as a whole rather than individuals in the system, provide the justification for the focus of the proposed research agenda and its design. This research builds on the vast literature on faculty development initiatives and teaching improvement (e.g., Emerson & Mosteller, 2000; Levinson-Rose & Menges, 1981; McAlpine & Saroyan, 2004; McKeachie & Svinicki, 2005; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Weimer & Lenze, 1991). It further takes into account two other bodies of literature: the nascent but growing literature on the role of academic leaders in enhancing and fostering teaching (e.g., Arcuri & Saroyan, 2003; Gmelch & Wolverton, 2002; Jones & Holdaway, 1995; Kekäle, 1999; Knight & Trowler, 2000; Ramsden, 1998; Saroyan, Tabatabai, & Hua, 2007; Wolverton & Gmelch, 2002), and the literature on organizational cultures and change (e.g., Bloor & Dawson, 1994; Bush & Middlewood, 2005; Denison, 1996; Mintzberg, 1989; Semler, 1997; Smart, 1996).

It would be naïve to assume that targeted professional development for individuals will have profound effects on the quality of teaching without considering the constraints and affordances that context, structure, and policies have on individual activity. It would also be naïve to assume that all individuals will be equally interested in investing in development activities if the system does not value the activity. Terenzini (1999) asserts that initiatives don’t produce expected results because they do “not infect the system” and as a solution, he restates Ewell’s (1997) recommendation that “Systemic change will require a comprehensive audit of current and contemplated policies, practices, and behaviors…[and] detailed analysis of current values and rewards and how these will inhibit or support the desired changes” (p. 6). It is in this light that the present research program is conceptualized and its theoretical and methodological approaches chosen.

Relationship /relevance of the proposed research to ongoing research

The proposed program is a direct extension of research carried out independently and collaboratively with colleagues at McGill University in the past 17 years. With continuous support from funding councils, to date, we have examined teaching improvement and development of pedagogical expertise (Saroyan-SSHRC, 1991-94; Donald, Saroyan, Amundsen - SSHRC, 1991-94), postsecondary students' conceptualization of learning (Donald, Saroyan, Amundsen- SSHRC, 1994-97), the assessment of teaching effectiveness (Saroyan and Amundsen, SSHRC, 1997-01), students’ and professors’ conceptualization of learning (Donald, Saroyan, Amundsen, Weston, and McAlpine -FCAR, 1996-99), academic leadership and the effective teaching and learning environment (Saroyan and Donald, SSHRC, 2001-05), academic leadership for teaching and learning (Saroyan, SSHRC, 2004-08), university teaching: meeting challenges and demands (Saroyan, Max Bell Foundation, 2006-09).

The starting point of the applicant’s systematically evolving research agenda was the individual professor’s trajectory of pedagogical development and the assessment of teaching (Gendron & Saroyan, 1994; Rahilly & Saroyan, 1997; Saroyan & Amundsen, 1994; 2001; Saroyan et al., 1997; Saroyan & Donald, 1994; Saroyan & Jazvac, 2003). This work led to a working model of teaching (Saroyan & Amundsen, 2004; Saroyan et al., 2006). More recent research has shifted to departmental leadership and its influence on teaching. To date, we have examined the perceptions of faculty and chairs of leadership style and its influence on teaching (Arcuri & Saroyan, 2003; Saroyan & Arcuri, 2003; Saroyan et al., 2002; Saroyan, Tabatabi, & Hua, 2007) and ways in which teaching is valued and promoted in different types of universities (research intensive and primarily teaching institutions) (Saroyan, Hua, & Arcuri, submitted) and in different disciplines (physics and history). The proposed program extends current research to the broader institutional context and explores the dynamic interaction between individuals and organizational structures and policies in advancing the teaching mission of the university.

Originality and anticipated contribution to knowledge

The contribution of the proposed research program is at multiple levels. In the first instance it is theoretical. More than four decades of research on various dimensions of university teaching has not yielded a robust theoretical model of effective teaching that takes into account the individual, the immediate environment, and the larger system within which teaching takes place. The CHAT framework may well provide the appropriate framework. In the second instance, the contribution is methodological. Studies that have explored various dimensions of teaching have done so by looking at the phenomenon in isolation and taking little account of the organizational structures within which the phenomenon occurs. The CHAT framework affords the methodological tools to examine the phenomenon within the constraints and affordances of the system. The variety of data sources proposed in this program will make it possible to triangulate the perspective of the main stakeholders, namely faculty members, the chair and dean, students, and the provost in order to generate a more comprehensive and ecologically valid understanding of teaching. The third contribution is practical. The proposed analysis of the system will bring to fore strengths and weaknesses in the fabric of institutional praxis. Knowing where the contradictions lie will be valuable knowledge for all stakeholders and most importantly for institutional policy makers because such knowledge will pave the way for more effective mediations that result in the transformation of teaching.

Theoretical framework

The theoretical lens for this research program is Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT). Developed by Vygotsky  (1986) and elaborated further by his colleagues and students (e.g., Leont'ev (1978)  and Luria (1981), CHAT provides a comprehensive framework for investigating every day work (Engeström, 1987). The theoretical terms of the activity system include agent (subject), object/outcome, tools used (means of production), division of labor, community, and rules. These elements are depicted in the "activity triangle", commonly used for analyzing activity systems. CHAT affords the analysis of the system as opposed to “atomistic and functional modes of analysis” (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 1). Moreover, it provides insight into contradictions, mediations, and transformations within and between the activity systems (faculty, chairs, and provost/deputy) with respect to the object and outcomes of the activity; in this case effective teaching and related events (supporting, developing and improving, evaluating, valuing and rewarding). This theoretical framework makes it possible to extend research from its focus on a single, isolated phenomenon such as faculty, chairs, teaching, learning, etc. to a broader and more comprehensive analysis of teaching as an activity that takes place within a specific context. Provisional terms of the activity triangle, elaborated with respect to the elements of the proposed research program, are depicted in the Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Activity framework constructs elaborated with provisional terms.

The second theoretical lens for this research is theories of action, as elaborated by Argyris & Schön (1974). The primary premise of this theory is that individuals have mental references that guide their actions in different situations and contexts. Moreover, what individuals say they do (their espoused theories) may or may not be compatible with what they actually do (their theories-in-use). Implicit in theories of action are assumptions about self (agency), others (community), the situation (object) and connections among actions, consequences, and situations. The complementarity of this theory with the CHAT framework is evident. Its value is that it will guide the choice of data sources to ensure that activity systems are defined in terms of both espoused theories and theories in use.

Methodology

The research program is framed by descriptive and explanatory questions and as such, lends itself to a multi-site, case study design and a mixed methodology. Nested in this design is the holistic case of one institution and the way its structures, policies, academic leaders and faculty members envision teaching effectiveness. The departments within the institution comprise the “bounded [sub]system” (Creswell, 1998;  Yin, 2006).

The unit of analysis is a teaching related event, elaborated in terms of espoused theories and theories in use corresponding to the support, development, evaluation, valuing, and rewarding of teaching. The choice of the CHAT theoretical framework for interpreting data as a first step is deliberate in this research program.

The “sites” will be 6 departments in one research-intensive Canadian university that are likely to present the greatest contrast. Criteria for the selection of sites will include size (number of full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty and student enrollments), degrees offered by department (undergraduate and graduate vs. only graduate), and discipline (professional vs. non-professional degree). These dimensions are singled out because of their direct impact on allocation of resources, the extent to which program outcomes are articulated and correspond with those specified by professional bodies, and potential consequences of these factors on teaching. The willingness of key persons in these departments (chair, a minimum of 75% of faculty) to participate will be another screening criterion. In addition, participants will include the provost or nominated representative (herein referred to as provost), deans of corresponding departments, and a minimum of 10 students from each of the participating departments.

Procedure/Data Sources/Instruments:

Data sources and treatment are elaborated below.

Semi structured Interviews with the provost, deans, chairs and faculty members of the selected departments (agents) will tap into perceptions and espoused views of participants with respect to teaching (object/outcome) and teaching related events (supporting, developing, improving, evaluating, valuing and rewarding). Questions will necessarily be informed by the CHAT framework and will tap into ways in which rules (institutional and departmental policies and practices) influence actions taken by individuals, the tools used (e.g., curriculum, classrooms, teaching approaches, technology) to achieve the objective and outcome of effective teaching (as defined by different agents), and the extent to which effective teaching and learning is seen as a distributed responsibility (division of labour) within the community (e.g., institution and its policies, Faculty, department, professors, students, professional community, etc.).

Interview data will be first transcribed and segmented, using an idea as the unit of segmentation. Coding will be done deductively, using the CHAT framework constructs. In the event that the CHAT framework is unable to account for phenomena, open coding, using the constant comparison approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) will be used.

Analysis of interview data will involve pattern-matching (Trochim, 1989) and more specifically, explanation building, attained through an iterative process (Yin, 2003). The CHAT framework provides the reference for identifying theoretically significant propositions (paired constructs) to explore causal links and draw critical insight at the individual and institutional levels. This dataset will yield: a) definitions for and the scope of the activity triangle constructs from the perspective of different individuals and groups (provost, deans, chairs, faculty members), b) contradictions that are observed within individual activity system between constructs (e.g., object and outcome – vision of effective teaching with tools used – mode of delivery), and c) contradictions between activity systems and corresponding constructs of faculty, chairs, and provost.  

The Revised Causal Dimension Scale (CDII) (McAuley, Duncan, & Russell, 1992) will be used to elicit participants’ impressions of their performance in delivery of effective teaching. This instrument is based on Weiner’s (1985, 1986) attribution theory and taps into three constructs: locus of causality (whether the cause for performing in a particular way is seen as being internal or external to the individual), stability (whether the cause is seen as stable or changeable over time), and control (whether the individual deems that he/she has control or no control over the cause).

Taking into account that there might be considerable differences between what individuals say they do (espoused theories) and what they actually do (theories in use), all participating faculty and chairs will be asked to complete the Personal Projects Analysis (PPA) (Little, 1983). The PPA “is a methodology designed to operationalize personal action constructs” (Little, 1993, p. 162) and offers “a window on the everyday plans, pursuits and passions of people in context” (Little, 1989, p. 22). It taps into 5 constructs: meaning (perceived importance, enjoyment, value congruency), structure (initiation and control of a project and time available to attend to it), community (visibility of project and how others value and evaluate it), efficacy (personal assessment of progress and expected outcomes of project), and stress (difficulty and challenges associated with project. Responses yield quantitative values based on a scoring protocol.

This approach will yield data about actual activities that individuals are engaged in, revealing the extent to which they are related to teaching. Data from this instrument will be triangulated with interview data.

Focus groups will be arranged with 10 students from participating departments to glean insight into their perceptions of the quality of teaching and its impact on their learning. Question to be asked will be formulated on the basis of CHAT constructs. For instance: How would you characterize teaching in your courses? In what ways is the department supporting teaching and learning? What do you think is the value of course evaluations? Data treatment will be similar to what was outlined for the interview data.

To triangulate converging lines of evidence and make stronger links between espoused theories and theories-in-use (actions), classroom observation data will be collected from a sub-sample. This sub-sample will comprise two departments in the set of 6, identified as the most disparate following interviews (i.e., show the least and most contradictions as determined by the activity systems of their respective faculty members). Depending on the size of these departments, observations may further be limited to only those individuals within each department who demonstrate the greatest degree of contradictions. In any event, to keep the task manageable, classroom observations will be limited to a total of 12 individuals and would be done at 3 different periods during one semester. The observation instrument will be a low-inference grid developed on the basis of each individual’s interview protocol and its purpose would be to establish whether classroom teaching and tools used to deliver it reflect the vision and philosophy of the individual as articulated in the interviews.

Where appropriate, descriptive statistics, log linear analysis (generalized linear model), and multivariate analysis will be used to conduct comparisons.

Communication of results

Higher education refereed journals and conferences organized by national and international professional organizations will be the main venues for disseminating results. Contacts developed with other teaching development centres and through the Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education will also be used to disseminate findings. Finally, ongoing collaboration with the European Commission and The World Bank will provide the applicant, as they have in the past (see “Other Research Contributions”, p. 8 of CV attachments) with the context to engage policy makers and academics in the very important discussion of educational development for improving university teaching and learning.

3. LIST OF REFERENCES

Amaral, A., Jones, G., &  Karseth, B., (Eds.) (2002). Governing higher education. National perspectives on institutional governance. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Arcuri, L., & Saroyan, A. (2003, August). Perceptions of leadership style and departmental outcomes. Paper presented at the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Padova, Italy.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1977). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

AUCC. (2002). Trends in higher education. Ottawa, ON: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

Bloor, G., & Dawson, P. (1994). Understanding professional culture in organizational context. Organizational Studies, 15(2), 275-295.

Bowden, J. (1988). Achieving change in teaching practices. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives (pp. 255-267). London, UK: Kogan Page Ltd.

Brew, A., & Boud, D. (1996). Preparing for new academic roles: An holistic approach to development. International Journal for Academic Development, 1(2), 17-25.

Bush, T., & Middlewood, D. (2005). Leading and managing people in education. London, UK: Sage.

Candy, J. (1996). Promoting life-long learning: Academic developers and the university as a learning organization. International Journal for Academic Development, 1, 7-19.

CAUT. (2007). CAUT Almanac of post-secondary education in Canada. Canadian Association of University Teachers.

Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chalmers, D., & O'Brien, M. (2004). Education development units and the enhancement of university teaching. In K. Fraser (Ed.), Education development and leadership in higher education (pp. 50-71). London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. London: Sage.

Denison, D. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619-654.

Diamond, R. (Ed.). (2005). The institutional change agency: Vol. 23. The expanding role of academic support centres. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Dill, D. (1993). Quality by design: toward a framework for academic quality management. In R.  Diamond (Ed.). New directions for higher education: Vol. 81 (pp. 37-83). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Donald, J. (1997). Improving the environment for learning: Academic leaders talk about what works. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Emerson, J., & Mosteller, F. (2000). Development programs for college faculty: Preparing for the twenty-first century. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 25, 26-42.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.

Ewell, P. (1997, December). Organizing for learning: A new perspective. AAHE Bulletin, 3-6.

Gendron, M., & Saroyan, A. (1994). Pedagogical expertise of professors. Paper presented at the 19th International Conference on Improving University Teaching, College Park, MD.

Gmelch, W., & Wolverton, M. (2002). An investigation of dean leadership. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Gosling, D. (2003). Philosophical approaches to academic development. In H. Eggins & R. Macdonald (Eds.), The scholarship of academic development (pp. 70-79). Buckingham, UK: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University.

Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations. Change, 31, 10-15.

Johnston, S. (1997). Educational development units: Aiming for a balanced approach to supporting teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 16(3), 331-342.

Jones, G., & Holdaway, E. (1995). Expectations held for department heads in postsecondary institutions. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41(2), 188-212.

Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177-228.

Kekäle, J. (1999). Preferred patterns of academic leadership in differential disciplinary (sub)cultures. Higher Education, 37, 217-238.

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2004). Meeting today's governance challenges: A synthesis of the literature and examination of a future agenda of scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education, 75, 4, 371-399.

Knight, P., & Trowler, P. (2000). Departmental-level cultures and the improvement of learning and teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 69-83.

Knight, P., & Wilcox, S. (1998). Effectiveness and ethics in educational development: Changing contexts, changing notions. The International Journal for Academic Development, 3, 97-106.

Knight, P., & Trowler, P. R. (2000). Departmental-level cultures and the improvement of learning and teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 69-83.

Kreber, C. (Ed.). (2001). Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching (Vol. 86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Land, R. (2004). Educational development. Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Leont'ev, A. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Levinson-Rose, J., & Menges, R. (1981). Improving college teaching: A critical review of research. Review of Educational Research, 51, 403-434.

Little, B. (1983). Personal projects: A rationale and method for investigation. Environment and behavior, 15(3), 273-309.

Little, B. (1989). Personal projects analysis: Trivial pursuits, magnificent obsessions, and the search for coherence. In D. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 15-31). New York: NY: Springer-Verlag.

Little, B. (1993). Personal projects and the distributed self: Aspects of a conative psychology. In J. Suls (Ed.), The self in social perspective: Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 4, pp. 157-185). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Luria, A. (1981). Language and cognition. New York, NY: John Wiley.

MacDonald, R. (2002). Academic development: Research, evaluation, and changing practice in higher education. In R. MacDonald & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Academics and academic development: Research, evaluation and changing practice in higher education (pp. 3-13). London, UK: Kogan Page.

Martin, E., Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Ramsden, P. (2003). Variations in the experience of leadership in teaching in higher education. Studies in higher education, 28(3), 247-259.

McAlpine, L., & Saroyan, A. (2004). Toward a comprehensive framework of faculty development. In A. Saroyan & C. Amundsen (Eds.), Rethinking teaching in higher education (pp. 207-232). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

McAlpine, L., Saroyan, A., & Winer, L. (2004). Development activities: Case descriptions for management and engineering. In A. Saroyan & C. Amundsen (Eds.), Rethinking teaching in higher education (pp. 230-250). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Russell, D. (1992). Measuring causal attribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 566-573.

McKeachie, W., & Svinicki, M. (2005). McKeachie's teaching tips (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management: Insight into our strange world of organizations. New York, NY: The Free Press.

POD (2002). What is faculty development? [Electronic Version]. What is faculty development? Retrieved August 6, 2007 from http://www.podnetwork.org/development/definitions.htm.

Poole, G., Taylor, L., & Thompson, J. (2007). Using the scholarship of teaching and learning at disciplinary, national and institutional levels to strategically improve the quality of post-secondary institutions. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 1-16.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Rahilly, T., & Saroyan, A. (1997). Characterizing poor and exemplary teaching in higher education: Implications for faculty development. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to lead in higher education. London: Routledge.

Rowland, S. (2003). Academic development: A practical or theoretical business? In H. Eggins & R. Macdonald (Eds.), The scholarship of academic development (pp. 13-22). Buckingham, UK: Society for research in Higher Education and Open University.

Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A. (2007). League tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 24-62.

Saroyan, A., & Amundsen, C. (1994). Focussing on the instructional process to promote change in teaching. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Saroyan, A., & Amundsen, C. (2001). Evaluating university teaching: Time to take stock. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 337-349.

Saroyan, A., & Amundsen, C. (Eds.). (2004). Rethinking teaching in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Saroyan, A., Amundsen, C., & Cao, L. (1997). Incorporating theories of teacher growth and adult education in a faculty development program. In D. Dezure (Ed.), To improve the academy (Vol. 16, pp. 93-116). Stillwater, OK: New Forums.

Saroyan, A., Amundsen, C., McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Winer, L., & Gandell,T. (2006).  Un modèle de développement pédagogique pour l'enseignement universitaire. In N. Rege Colet and M. Romainville (Eds.), La pratique enseignante en mutation dans l’enseignement supérieur (pp. 171-184). Bruxelles: De Boeck & Larcier.

Saroyan, A., & Arcuri, L. (2003). Academic leadership and the effective teaching and learning environment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Saroyan, A., Arcuri, L., Bouchard, J., Davies, S., Jazvac, M., & Saggers, R. (2002). Academic leadership: A research program in progress. Paper presented at the Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education, Toronto, ON.

Saroyan, A., & Arcuri, N. (2002, April). Academic leadership as perceived by chairs and faculty. Paper presented at the Improving University Teaching and Learning, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Saroyan, A., & Donald, J. (1994). Evaluating teaching performance in Canadian universities. Das Hochschulwesen. Forum für hochschulforschung, praxis und poloitik, 6, 282-291.

Saroyan, A., & Jazvac, M. (2003). Teaching in higher education: International initiatives promoting quality and value. In F. Salili & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Research in teaching, learning, and student motivation in multicultural contexts: Multicultural education and international perspectives (Vol. 3, pp. 223-241). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Saroyan, A., Hua, O., & Arcuri, N. (submitted). Departmental leadership and perceptions of teaching environment.

Saroyan, A., Tabatabi, D., & Hua, O. (2007). Academic leadership from multiple theoretical perspectives. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Semler, S. (1997). Systematic agreement: A theory of organizational alignment. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 8(1), 23-40.

Smart, J. (Ed.). (1996). Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 11). New York, NY: Agathon.

Smith, B. (2004). The role of national UK organisations in enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. In K. Fraser (Ed.), Education development and leadership in higher education (pp. 16-29). London, UK: RoutledgeFalmers.

Sorcinelli, M., Austin, A., Eddy, P., & Beach, A. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker.

STLHE (1995). A directory of Canadian instructional development offices and activities. Unpublished Directory. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newburry Park, CA: Sage.

Taylor, L., & Bédard, D. (under contract). Faculty development in Canadian universities. In A. Saroyan & M. Frenay (Eds.), Building teaching capacities in universities: From faculty development to educational development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Taylor, L., & Rege-Colet, N. (under contract). Making the shift from faculty development to educational development: A conceptual framework grounded in practice. In A. Saroyan & M. Frenay (Eds.), Building teaching capacities in universities: From faculty development to educational development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Terenzini, P. (1999). Research and practice in undergraduate education: And never the Twain shall meet? Higher Education, 38(1), 33-48.

Trochim, W. (1989). Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 355-366.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (A. Kozulin, Ed., Trans. Cambridge, MA: MIT. (Original work published 1934)

Weimer, M., & Lenze, L. (1991). Instructional interventions: A review of the literature on efforts to improve instruction. In C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 7). New York, NY: Agathon.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Wilcox, S. (1997). Educational development in higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, ON.

Wolverton, M., & Gmelch, W. (2002). College deans: Leading from within. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Onyx.

Wright, A. (1995). Teaching improvement practices: Successful strategies for higher education. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Wright, D. (Ed.). (2000). Faculty development centers in research universities: A study of resources and programs (Vol. 18). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. (2006). Case study methods. In Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 111-122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.